JUDGMENT - B.B. VAGYANI, J.:---Heard Shri P.R. Katneshwarkar, learned Advocate holding for Shri M.H. Patil, learned Advocate for the petitioners, Shri P.K. Joshi, learned Advocate for the respondents Nos. 1 to 3 and Shri S.R. Palnitkar, learned A.G.P. for respondent No. 4.

2. Rule made returnable forthwith. With consent of the parties, the matter is taken up for final hearing.

3. The petitioners herein original plaintiffs in Regular Civil Suit No. 322 of 1999 had borrowed a loan of Rs. 6,80,000/- from the respondents Nos. 1 to 3 and executed a mortgage deed for Rs. 7,50,000/- in favour of respondents Nos. 1 to 3. The main relief in the suit is declaration to the effect that the mortgage deed is bad in law and, therefore, is not binding on the plaintiffs. The petitioners have paid Court fees of Rs. 460/- only.

4. The respondents herein raised objection with regard to payment of Court fees. According to the respondents, the dues payable to them comes to Rs. 15,44,131/-. The respondents issued a notice under section 29 of the State Financial Corporations Act, 1951 to the present petitioners. In order to avoid payment claimed in the notice, the plaintiffs filed the suit. According to the

Click Here to Read the rest of this document